Slashdot Mirror
Google & Firefox's Relationship
sebFlyte writes "More news from FOSDEM, this time about the depth of support for Firefox from Google. According to this article on ZDNet, Firefox' growth and Mozilla's staffing costs have been underpinned by the Foundation's tie-ins with Google, but they promise not to go the same way as Netscape by selling 'every bookmark and link'... and don't forget that the lead programmer (among others) is directly in Google's employ."
MSN Search actually funds Internet Explorer. With MSN Search getting over 30 hits / day, the ad revenue is more than enough to sustain active development, including the revolutionary "tabbed browsing" internet surfers everywhere are pining to try out.
Those who can, do.
Those who cannot, teach.
Those who think they can but cannot, manage.
All is well and good right now, google's still not evil.
The chances of google remaining not evil however in the long term future are not good. Every big company turns evil sooner or later.. it is only matter of time.
When Google will port Picasa to a web-interface, followed by a small word processor, and offer their customers 1 GB to store their data, they will need to have their fingers in at least one big browser. Not to pump it full with ads, but to make sure it is a good enough thin client for their purposes.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Google is our friend right now because favouring firefox would benifit their own shareholders by keeping Microsoft from introducing more divergent tandards. Whenever I think about Google as the Good Company, I am instantly reminded of a flash intro called EPIC 2014.
Google is good for FireFox now - and probably will remain good. The only question is about what we will have to pay (ie Free Software == open market for services). You see IBM playing the same card trying to commoditize software to knock Microsoft off the software market.Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
I will start worrying when Google won't work in IE anymore. Which is as likely to happen as Windows being built on top of the Linux kernel. By supporting Mozilla.org, Google is ensuring that Microsoft won't be able to push through whatever formats and standards they like simply through the power of ubiquity. After all, there's nothing like healthy competition to promote inovation. (And absence of software patents, but I digress.)
Just
A very respected company that just works and keeps it that way.
This'll likely be judged as a troll, but I'd like to add the likely caveat "for now". Every company the tech community has taken a liken to at one point (Microsoft, Apple, RedHat, etc) has squandered that trust over time (antitrust, excessive litigation, leaving the base community for corporations).
I'm not saying Google will do this, but I can't think of a single, not-for-profit tech company that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in its history. Can you?
I would personally think if they took a fork and created the gBrowser line, then it would negate all the good hard work that has gone into Firefox.
:)
Brand recognition is key, and Firefox is certainly better known than gBrowser.
Look at the blank expression on peoples faces when you say "do you have gmail?"
Most regular users have to be told "its googles email service, yes its like hotmail, only better..."
Firefox is firefox in my eyes
liqbase
Microsoft doesn't have to build a better browser. It just has to build one that's good enough. It already has the lion's share of the market.
If they build one that's good enough, and whose security model is comparable to Firefox's or Opera's, Alternate browsers will be marginalized again, W3C standards or no W3C standards.
Just to clarify: Google is just one of several search partners we have at the Mozilla Foundation, although (as is fairly evident from looking at the software) it is currently the one we have the closest ties with, by virtue of them hosting the home page.
"Keeping the wolf from the door" is a bit too strong - we are establishing good relationships with a number of companies, all of whom are supporting the Foundation in different ways. My comments were merely intended to say that the Foundation is not going anywhere - we'll be around for the forseeable future.
One further clarification: Firefox localisations can change to use a localised version of Google; they are not kept to using the en-US version, as the article implies.
Gerv
(the speaker on whose comments the article is based)
Note to Website developers: Stop sitting there with your arms crossed and insisting on making sites that aren't in compliance with public standards. Instead support the idea that if we -all- agree on standards it removes the power from proprietary software --- and that the mindset of "well it's just one cool non-standard feature" is exactly the mindset that got us in this mess!
Firefox is still doing well despite the fact that users have to take three non-passive actions: 1 ) actively seek it out and 2) download it and 3) install it. Also, large installations are reluctant to draw attention to themselves for fear of reprisal in the form of increased MS fees and such. There are, however, ways to hide from MS.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
If Google and the Mozilla foundation are in bed together, why does the Google Desktop Search product support IE exclusively? If the Mozilla Foundation (or even Google) wanted to move users over to FireFox, they need to have guaranteed compatibility on most (if not all) applications.
And while I wouldn't call Google Desktop Search a 'vital' application for the majority of casual web users, it's a given that many core users switched to a competitor's Desktop Search product (read Copernic) when migrating to FireFox.